Living Body — Health Check (all known connectors)

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it explicitly says missing connectors are reported rather than silently skipped, and that install hints are included in the output.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action, the full scope, the treatment of missing connectors, and the presence of install hints. There is no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The output schema and annotations cover return values and safety, and the single optional parameter is self-explanatory. However, with eight sibling tools including other status-related tools, the description lacks guidance on when this health check should be selected over them, so the overall context is not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The only parameter, response_format, is fully constrained by the schema's enum and default, so the agent does not need additional description to use it correctly. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema provides enough semantics on its own.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it returns status for every known connector, including missing ones, and includes install hints. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like living_body_connection_status and living_body_status by emphasizing the comprehensive, all-connector scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus the sibling status/connection tools. The phrase 'including missing ones — with install hints' implies a diagnostic use case, but the description does not state conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.